137.106
Restitution to victims; objections by defendant; disclosure to defendant. (1)(a) Except as provided in
subsection (8) of this section, when a person is convicted of a crime, or a
violation as described in ORS 153.008, that has resulted in economic damages,
the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, at the time
of sentencing or as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, evidence of
the nature and amount of the damages.
(b)(A) If the
district attorney is unable to present restitution evidence at sentencing,
within 90 days after sentencing the district attorney may file a motion
requesting that either the judgment be amended to require restitution or that a
supplemental judgment be entered requiring restitution. The court may extend
the time by which the district attorney must file the motion for good cause.
The motion must contain a statement that documentation supporting the requested
amount of restitution has been provided to the defendant as described in
subsection (7) of this section.
(B) Upon receipt
of a motion described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the court shall
set a hearing. If the defendant objects to the motion, the objection must be
filed at least 15 days prior to the hearing and must contain a description of
the nature of the objection.
(C) If the parties
stipulate to the order and amount of restitution, the court may cancel the
hearing and amend the judgment or enter a supplemental judgment requiring the
defendant to pay the stipulated amount of restitution.
(c) At a
restitution proceeding, economic damages will be presumed reasonable if the
damages are documented in the form of a record, bill, estimate or invoice from
a business, health care entity or provider or public body as defined in ORS
174.109.
(2)(a) If the
court finds from the evidence presented that a victim suffered economic
damages, in addition to any other sanction it may impose, the court shall enter
a judgment or supplemental judgment requiring that the defendant pay the victim
restitution in a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim’s
economic damages as determined by the court. The lien, priority of the lien and
ability to enforce the specific amount of restitution established under this
paragraph by a supplemental judgment relates back to the date of the original
judgment that is supplemented.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a court may order that the
defendant pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that is less than the
full amount of the victim’s economic damages only if:
(A) The victim
or, if the victim is an estate, successor in interest, trust or other entity,
an authorized representative of the victim consents to the lesser amount, if
the conviction is not for a person felony; or
(B) The victim
or, if the victim is an estate, successor in interest, trust or other entity,
an authorized representative of the victim consents in writing to the lesser
amount, if the conviction is for a person felony.
(c) As used in
this subsection, “person felony” has the meaning given that term in the rules
of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
(3) After the
district attorney makes a presentation described in subsection (1) of this
section, if the court is unable to find from the evidence presented that a
victim suffered economic damages, the court shall make a finding on the record
to that effect.
(4) No finding
made by the court or failure of the court to make a finding under this section
limits or impairs the rights of a person injured to sue and recover damages in
a civil action as provided in ORS 137.109.
(5)(a) If a
judgment or supplemental judgment described in subsection (1) of this section
includes restitution, a court may delay the enforcement of the monetary
sanctions, including restitution, only if the defendant alleges and establishes
to the satisfaction of the court the defendant’s inability to pay the judgment
in full at the time the judgment is entered. If the court finds that the
defendant is unable to pay, the court may establish or allow an appropriate
supervising authority to establish a payment schedule, taking into consideration
the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of
restitution will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the
defendant. The supervising authority shall be authorized to modify any payment
schedule established under this section.
(b) As used in
this subsection, “supervising authority” means any state or local agency that
is authorized to supervise the defendant.
(6) If the
defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution,
the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue at the time of
sentencing or at the time the court determines the amount of restitution.
(7)(a) At least
10 days prior to the presentation described in subsection (1) of this section,
the district attorney shall:
(A) Disclose to
the defendant the names of any witnesses that may be called during the
presentation; and
(B) Provide the
defendant with copies of, or allow the defendant to inspect, any exhibits that
will be used or introduced during the presentation.
(b) If the court
finds that the district attorney has violated the requirements of this
subsection, the court shall grant a continuance to allow additional time for
preparation upon request of the defendant. Any additional time granted under
this paragraph may not count toward the 90-day time limitation described in
subsection (1) of this section.
(8) A victim that
is an insurance carrier may direct the district attorney not to seek
restitution for damages incurred by the insurance carrier by notifying the
district attorney of the insurance carrier’s intent to sue and recover damages
from the defendant in a civil action. An insurance carrier that does not direct
the district attorney not to seek restitution under this subsection agrees that
50 percent of awards of restitution ordered to the insurance carrier shall be
paid to the Department of Justice as provided in ORS 137.102. [1977 c.371 §2;
1983 c.724 §1; 1993 c.533 §1; 1997 c.313 §23; 1999 c.1051 §124; 2003 c.670 §1;
2005 c.564 §2; 2007 c.425 §1; 2007 c.482 §1; 2013 c.388 §1; 2015 c.9 §2; 2022
c.57 §1; 2025 c.360 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
429
cases (
96 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 37× “Under ORS 137.106, 1 the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution and included in its restitution award to one of the victims, defendant’s insurer, fees that the victim had paid to attorneys and investigators for their time spent in investigating defendant’s claim for…”
State v. Taylor, 455 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 46× “106 included two distinct timing require- ments for restitution: First, it required that, “[w]hen a per- son is convicted of a crime * * * that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, prior to the time of sentencing,…”
State v. Andrews, 456 P.3d 261 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 20× “Held: Under the criminal restitution statute, ORS 137.106, a trial court may not award restitution unless it can determine, from the record and the defendant’s conviction, that the jury necessarily found that the defendant committed the criminal act upon which the claim of…”
State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 482 P.3d 62 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 11× “After the state presented evidence of a repair bill paid by the victim’s insurer, the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution for the full amount of that bill, pursuant to ORS 137.106. Defendant appealed, arguing that the restitution award was not supported by…”
State v. Edson, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999).
· cites it 24× “According to the state, the trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered her to pay restitution nonetheless.”
State v. Gruver, 268 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 39× “In addition, none of the other subsections of ORS 137.106 (1977) supports the state’s argument that a defendant’s failure to assert his or her statutory right to a hearing constituted a “waiver” of appellate review of the award of restitution.”
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 27× “2 Over defendant’s objection, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $2,000 in restitution to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), under ORS 137.106. The court did so, even though the state presented no evidence that the hawk found in defendant’s freezer had a…”
State v. McClelland, 372 P.3d 614 (Coos Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Ramos, 358 Or 581, 588 , 368 P3d 446 (2016), “neither ORS 137.106 nor the definition of economic damages in ORS 31.”
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 16× “Pursuant to ORS 137.106, the trial court judgment also granted the state 90 days to submit a “reasonable final restitution amount.”
State v. Gerhardt, 385 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 9× “It further held that, under ORS 137.106, whether a crime “result [s] in” economic damage is a function of two considerations.”
State v. Riverman, 513 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “That is, whether the trial court complied with the restitution requirements in ORS 137.106 is a question of law, it is not reasonably in dispute in this case, and we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to conclude that the trial court erred.”
State v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 12× “710(2), so as to provide a basis for an award of restitution under ORS 137.106. We affirm. The facts of the underlying crimes and the victim’s injuries are not disputed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1) — 138 cases
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
“Under ORS 137.106, 1 the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution and included in its restitution award to one of the victims, defendant’s insurer, fees that the victim had paid to attorneys and investigators for their time spent in investigating defendant’s claim for…”
State v. Riverman, 513 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“That is, whether the trial court complied with the restitution requirements in ORS 137.106 is a question of law, it is not reasonably in dispute in this case, and we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to conclude that the trial court erred.”
State v. Taylor, 455 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“106 included two distinct timing require- ments for restitution: First, it required that, “[w]hen a per- son is convicted of a crime * * * that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, prior to the time of sentencing,…”
State v. Edson, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999).
“According to the state, the trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered her to pay restitution nonetheless.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(a) — 90 cases
State v. Taylor, 455 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“106 included two distinct timing require- ments for restitution: First, it required that, “[w]hen a per- son is convicted of a crime * * * that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, prior to the time of sentencing,…”
State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 482 P.3d 62 (Or. 2021).
“After the state presented evidence of a repair bill paid by the victim’s insurer, the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution for the full amount of that bill, pursuant to ORS 137.106. Defendant appealed, arguing that the restitution award was not supported by…”
State v. Andrews, 456 P.3d 261 (Or. 2020).
“Held: Under the criminal restitution statute, ORS 137.106, a trial court may not award restitution unless it can determine, from the record and the defendant’s conviction, that the jury necessarily found that the defendant committed the criminal act upon which the claim of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Taylor, 455 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“106 included two distinct timing require- ments for restitution: First, it required that, “[w]hen a per- son is convicted of a crime * * * that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, prior to the time of sentencing,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(b)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(c) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(1)(c)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“710(2), so as to provide a basis for an award of restitution under ORS 137.106. We affirm. The facts of the underlying crimes and the victim’s injuries are not disputed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2) — 26 cases
State v. Edson, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999).
“According to the state, the trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered her to pay restitution nonetheless.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2)(a) — 18 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2)(a)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Edson, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999).
“According to the state, the trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered her to pay restitution nonetheless.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Edson, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999).
“According to the state, the trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered her to pay restitution nonetheless.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(3) — 27 cases
State v. Gruver, 268 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“In addition, none of the other subsections of ORS 137.106 (1977) supports the state’s argument that a defendant’s failure to assert his or her statutory right to a hearing constituted a “waiver” of appellate review of the award of restitution.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(4)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(4)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(5) — 21 cases
State v. Gruver, 268 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“In addition, none of the other subsections of ORS 137.106 (1977) supports the state’s argument that a defendant’s failure to assert his or her statutory right to a hearing constituted a “waiver” of appellate review of the award of restitution.”
State v. Andrews, 456 P.3d 261 (Or. 2020).
“Held: Under the criminal restitution statute, ORS 137.106, a trial court may not award restitution unless it can determine, from the record and the defendant’s conviction, that the jury necessarily found that the defendant committed the criminal act upon which the claim of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(6) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(l)(a) — 28 cases
State v. McClelland, 372 P.3d 614 (Coos Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“Ramos, 358 Or 581, 588 , 368 P3d 446 (2016), “neither ORS 137.106 nor the definition of economic damages in ORS 31.”
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
“Under ORS 137.106, 1 the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution and included in its restitution award to one of the victims, defendant’s insurer, fees that the victim had paid to attorneys and investigators for their time spent in investigating defendant’s claim for…”
State v. Gerhardt, 385 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2016).
“It further held that, under ORS 137.106, whether a crime “result [s] in” economic damage is a function of two considerations.”
State v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“710(2), so as to provide a basis for an award of restitution under ORS 137.106. We affirm. The facts of the underlying crimes and the victim’s injuries are not disputed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106(l)(b) — 22 cases
State v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“710(2), so as to provide a basis for an award of restitution under ORS 137.106. We affirm. The facts of the underlying crimes and the victim’s injuries are not disputed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.